tv Washington Journal 03132019 CSPAN March 13, 2019 6:59am-10:01am EDT
together lincoln scholars to highlight the 16th president's life, career, and legacy. include on lincoln and the national environment. and how he was remembered in a new deal america and his relationship with frederick douglass and lincoln as president-elect. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. up next, live on washington journal, your calls and comments . at 8:00 a.m. eastern, the washington examiner's kimberly leonard talked about president trump's proposed 2020 budget request and its possible impact on health care policy. then pennsylvania democratic congressman brendan boyle discusses president trump's budget and former vice president
possible 2020 presidential run. later, republican congressman tom rice of south carolina on host: it is the washington journal. senate republicans are looking to pass a bill -- emergency declarations by the president. this is in the hopes of carrying favor among republicans poised to vote tomorrow against the current declarations. an effort to gain funds for the border wall. also, on our website, you can watch a hearing on college affordability. that will be held by the house education committee. you can see that at 10:15 this morning at c-span.org. the justice department has exposed a cheating ring for wealthy parents want to skip the regular way of getting their
child into a top school. and, question the college emissions process and that there are changes needed to -- admissions process and ensure there are changes needed. when it comes to changing the process, we want to get your thoughts on it. if you are a college student or are a parent call us. tell us what you think about it. others, (202)ll 748-8001. you can post on our social media site at c-span wj. our twitter feed and facebook page on facebook.com/c-span. this is the picture that came out yesterday from the justice department revelation of what went on. the one in charge who put these colleges and the parents together. below that, two well-known actresses, lori locklin and felicity huffman who got caught up in this. the university of
southern california water polo coach. at the justice department, one of the top investigators laid out that -- the charges. [video clip] >> these parents are a catalog of wealth and privilege. they include ceos of private and public companies, successful securities and real estate investors, two well-known actresses, a famous fashion designer, and the coaching are of a -- cochairman of a global buffer. based on the charges, all of them knowingly conspired to help their children either cheat on the sat or act and or buy their children's admission to an elite school. the majority paid between
$250,000 and $400,000 per student. this case is about the widening corruption of elite college admissions through the steady application of wealth combined with fraud. there can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy. there will not be a separate criminal justice system either. ivory year -- every year, hundreds of thousands of hard-working, talented students strive for admission to elite schools. as every parent knows, these students work harder and harder every year in a system that appears to grow more and more competitive every year. that system is a zero-sum game. for every student admitted through fraud, an honest, genuinely taunted student was rejected. host: that was the justice department's take on it yesterday. , theew york times headline, college is still for
sale. american colleges have long valued athletic ability. -- schoolsulate mitt similarly -- colleges have a legitimate interest in emphasizing areas forms of diversity. it seems strange to stipulate that being that this act -- what was revealed yesterday is the topic for our first hour. if you are a college student yourself or a parent sending a kid to college and you want to comment on what took place and what he think about potential changes needed to the system or the process, (202) 748-8000. all others, (202) 748-8001. you can also post on our social media sites as well. on the phone joining us to give us more context of what went on yesterday is scott, the editor
of inside higher. thank you for joining us. guest: good morning, thank you. host: aside from the technical details, what was the response from the college community? horrified, atre least at the beginning, that there was actual bribery going on. actual deceit in this way. the deeper question that some are asking is about all of the legal ways that wealthy people have an advantage. if all of these people are found guilty and go to jail, the rich will still have an advantage the next day. it is important to remember this is an extreme version of help that rich students get everyday, every year. host: sketch out the legal venues that wealthy parents can take. guest: it is all over the place. start with what high school you went to. that is a huge advantage. if you go to a good suburban or
private high school, what is the ?atio of counselor to student hundreds and hundreds at city schools. it is very intimate relationships you can have with a counselor at a private school or a wealthy suburban school. it is coaching for tests. that is legal. it is help writing your essay. that is legal. there is the ability to apply early, which anyone can do, but it is harder if you are worried about comparing aid offers. the entire system is advantageous to the wealthy. host: what is the ratio of those who put in applications for the top tiered schools to those who actually get in? guest: at the very top, we are talking about admit -- i would be careful about that particular rhetoric. the reality is the students who are rejected from harvard and stanford end up just fine.
while obviously some need to get over their disappointment and not go into their first choice college, when you look at those statistics, there is actually not a crisis in well-prepared students finding a good college to go to. host: when it comes to the do you thinkocess, this is going to spark a larger conversation about the emissions process or do you think that has come and gone? guest: i hope it does. i fear there will be too much of youcus on the absurdity find in the emails and the recordings that came out yesterday and the fact that they are celebrities -- there are celebrities involved. it is hard for people to not focus on that. i hope they will focus on the broader issues, which do not relate to actresses. host: it sounds like you are not shocked by the revelations. guest: it has become clear for
some time that wealthy individuals will try to work the system to their advantage. another thing that came out yesterday that i knew but that people do not like to think about is that being a recruited athlete is a huge advantage to an applicant, even at very good academic institutions. this is not just a matter of football factories. it is a very smart strategy for people to try to get on that list even when they were not recruited athlete. coversour publication washington, d.c. affairs. do you think this incident will rise to the interest of congress investigating this process? guest: i suspect it will. congress investigates lots of -- whichat colleges does not do anything. less sure there will be
action. scottscott jackson -- jaschik serves as inside higher ed.com is the editor. thinking on changes to the process. if you want to share your thoughts, it is (202) 748-8000 for those of you who are college students or if you are a parent of a college student. all others, (202) 748-8001. you can join us on social media at c's benda bj. -- at c-span wj. willr line for others, we start in ohio. this is dena. my first thought is the breathtaking irony of the hollywood elite who like to lecture us on white privilege.
my second comment is as a single parent, i was able to get three children through parent -- through college on my own. one from the universe -- two from the university of cincinnati and one in kansas. kansas was a talented baseball player. we traveled back and forth. it was an awesome experience. it was an awesome a compliment. my third comment, i believe that children currently enrolled in school that were put in by these fraudulent means should be immediately suspended and that each situation should be determined by each college individual, whether those kids should stay there. host: what would you change about the process? i would leaveve the cog -- the process the same. were in college from 1996 until 2007. it was a little bit easier
because it was not so much done by computers. the sat and act process was hard. we did it legitimately. i do not think any of that should change. host: that is dena from ohio starting us off on our -- starting us off. on our facebook feed, this is stephanie saying, we need people who follow the rules. the changes need to be made to the crowd people, not the process. brian off of facebook says, college started as elite institutions before initiatives like the g.i. bill opened them up to the middle class. looked like we are going backwards again. on our line for others, this is rob in new york. caller: good morning. inc. you for c-span. host: thank you for calling. happened to the old saying that a c student can make for some of the best
people? you do not necessarily have to be a straight a ivy league to turn out to be a great person and a productive person. educational bribery scheme scheme that casts such a negative light on some people who are getting ahead falsely. i would be very interested to 's grades anddent see how he got through. he did not go to the wharton school of business. he went to wharton college. they are two very different things. he went to fordham for a couple of years. host: for those current students that got enrolled in those -- in
that process, what do you think should happen to them? caller: i feel badly for the children whose parents, these famous people who took these actions to try to get their children ahead, imagine how they feel about the scandal that their parents created on their behalf. i am glad the media is keeping them out of it to some degree. we are not hearing about who they are, what their names are et cetera. there is nothing wrong with a c student. host: that is rob in new york. this is teresa in maryland on our line for students and parents. i feel really sad for the students. the process should stay the same. whoever is doing this should be serially punished. for the admission from
2012 to 2016. this should be punished. host: aside from yesterday, the emissions process works is what you are saying. caller: it works. it is amazing to be in such a school if you deserve it. host: do you think it gives opportunities for everyone as far as the process is concerned? caller: i strongly think so. i believe it. host: from the new york times this morning, part of their editorial reads, the very nature of the clock -- of the crimes illustrates the way in which college admissions are not based on academic merit. the coach of the stanford is charged with giving a land rover to a recruit. colleges favor the wealthy.
the widespread practice of preferentially emitting the children of alumni is a fundraising technique. for the wealthy, there is the option of making a significant donation. that is some of the thoughts from the times editors. it is (202) 748-8000 for those of you who are college students and parents. (202) 748-8001 for others. let's go to maryland for our others line. caller: the preferential treatment that the parents used money to get their kids into school is nothing in comparison to what the government does by giving preferential treatment to blacks, illegal aliens, any minority group. the government pushes affirmative action, pushes quotas. they discriminate against other people. blackvernment helps fund
people to go into colleges. illegals to go to colleges. nobody has a problem with that. they do not have a problem with those problems. they have a problem when something like they's takes place. -- like this take place. the government has put forward more money than these parents have in order to get the minorities into school and discriminate against white students. just look at harvard. harvard is being sued for dissemination against a nonminority student for him getting and to harvard. the -- getting in to harvard. the government has been way worse. why don't we prosecute them? host: this fronted a statement yesterday from the lawyers committee for civil rights. this is part of the statement they put out. we demand greater accountability and transparency of the emissions process on behalf of the thousands of exceptional applicants of color who seek admission to our colleges and universities each year and yet
to have their qualifications called into question as a result. the statement goes on to say moment that calls on our institutions of higher learning to expose fraudulent practices and commit to addressing the various ways in --ch privilege and bias the new york times stories on it comes to one example. this is highlighting stanford university. thatord university said the university et cetera just 2040. thickset -- the university accepted just 2040. with was the lowest in stanford's history. the prominent massachusetts real estate developer john wasn't paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2018 did secure -- in 2018 to secure a spot for his daughter.
amy is next. amy in rockville, maryland peered -- in rockville, maryland. caller: i am calling as a recent student. process shoulde probably change a little bit. whoe are a lot of students go to top schools. i graduated from one very recently. who are not necessarily more intelligent or have more merit than students who do not go to top schools. the difference is that they had a huge advantage to get there. they went to elite private schools or top public schools and had been coached for many years to get to those elite colleges. what with that in mind, changes would you advocate or what you think would be a good idea as far as a chain?
caller: i think that legacy an affirmative action for the wealthy. that process needs to have a second look. colleges should re-look at that. host: that is amy calling us from rockville, maryland. we gave you stanford's take on the number of students who get excepted. wall street journal says that when it comes to the u.s., most elite schools now accept less than 6% of all those that apply. some schools routinely reject class valedictorians and students with near-perfect scores on their college board. elite schools admit more students outside the u.s., particularly from china, and give preference to students of alumni. that means fewer slots for everyone else. that is from the wall street journal this morning. we will hear from leah from
tennessee. good morning. caller: my name is tia. host: sorry about that. caller: i have a son studying at tennessee tech. ok? host: ok. jr.er: he is a -- he has working for the cup that he is working for the college -- he is working for the college. he is working part-time. yet, he has to pay [indiscernible] of that, what did you think of the events of yesterday? what did you think of the events of the justice department filing
the claims -- caller: he lost his whole scholarship. hello hello? i am not done. host: we will go to betty in pennsylvania. caller: i had a college student who was a swimmer. all of the students we spent so much training and then to allow children who have no interest or no talent in a sport to be allowed in is unfair. moreoaches should be carefully scrutinized. host: were you surprised i the revelation particularly on this portside? caller: not surprised, but i felt bad for the children. host: what was the admissions process like for you? you think there are changes needed for the process? caller: some of the coaches are not meeting those children. needs to be face-to-face contact
with every athlete. host: we will hear from thomas in illinois. go ahead. caller: i am in aurora, illinois. , the unitedto be states little government governs us. other things govern us too such as the corporations. they govern our lifestyle in many ways. actors and hollywood corporate ceos and government is involved too because a lot of these universities are forms of government also -- coming together in conspiracies, it makes us wonder what else is going on. it is like watching the movie rosemary's baby when they are
casting spells on the public. host: if that is the case, what changes are needed to the system in your mind? caller: one thing we need to look out for, for instance, the charities. whether it be college sports are hollywood or the corporations, they are all claiming to give all this money to charities. they are giving money to charities and writing it off on taxes. host: that is thomas giving his thoughts on the college admissions process and the potential changes that are needed. if you want to see this presentation from yesterday, you can go to our website. here's more from one of the fbi special agent who was in charge of the investigation. [video clip] wheres is not a case
parents were acting in the best interests of their children. this was a case where they flaunted their wealth, sparing no expense to cheat the system so they could set their children up with the best education money could buy, literally. 200,000nt anywhere from to six and a half million dollars for guaranteed admission. their actions were without a doubt insidious, selfish, and shameful. the real victims in this case are the hard-working students who did everything they could to set themselves up for success in the college emissions process but ended up being shut out because far less qualified students and their families bought their way in. what is also cause for concern is how this was allowed to happen in the first place. evidence we have obtained showed
that trusted coaches and demonstrators manipulated the system -- and diminished readers manipulated the system -- and inipulated the systems place. some did not play the sports they were recruited to play. host: more is available on our website. jerry off of facebook says it is time to go after big education with the same method that is used to go after corporations. annexed -- is up next from ohio. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: i have been watching the show and thought i would call in. we need to make changes. to be a major theme in the news. people saying,
these people have an edge because of this. i went to a private school. a well-known private high school, which did give me an edge. the reason i was able to obtain that edge is because i worked really hard to obtain that edge all through grade school to playing sports so i could get scholarships. i understand there is corruption. i cannot stand hearing people constantly say, it is this privilege because they went to a private school. to take that away from the people who do is insulting. host: so the current students who got in under the system, should they stay in the college or not? if they got in corrup tly, no. if there scores are great, let them stay. they worked hard.
involved, --on is whereis the other edge you have to determine the level of guilt and the students' level of guilt. host: john is next in chicago. caller: thanks very much for having me. i am calling as a college professor and a faculty athletic representative for an institution in chicago. i'm also involved in the recruitment process. i cannot tell you how disappointed i am with the story breaking. we have a number of checks and balances with our coaches and administrators. our chancellor and his team oversee -- i agree with some of the comments that have been made.
it does start internally. you have to look at the administrative and leadership fabric of every institution where ncaa sports are played. you have to do some kind of processesome of the and the ways that parents and others outside the institution interact with the athletics department and the coaches. host: when you say audit, is this to ensure that people who are supposedly brought on to play on a sports team under a scholarship are actually playing for that team? caller: you have to go deeper than that. the actual look at administered a processes of the recruitment. the way that grades and so forth are verified and checked. thatlso have to make sure if the athletes are being recruited, of course they have to be checked if they actually play the sport. it is utterly ridiculous that they were not. that is one of the reasons i am
so disappointed. being involved in recruitment as i am, we verify and there is a faculty -- and as a representative, i verify whether the players have played. it is utterly preposterous that this is happened. host: this is john in chicago. he says he is an administrator giving his take on the matter. igie off of facebook says think what was done is a good start. lawthe fear of god or the into the next one that things of taking a bribe or offering one. it was the justice department laying out charges from the bribery scam. we are using this to talk about the admissions process overall. do you think changes are needed? if you are a college student or parent, it is (202) 748-8000. if -- for all others, it is (202) 748-8001.
you can make your thoughts known. there is a hearing later on at 10:15 on college affordability. this will be from the house education committee. it might address these issues stemming from yesterday. that will start at 10:15. if you're interested in that hearing and what legislators think about the affordability of college, you can do so at 10:15. you can watch on a website. -- on our website. walter from michigan, a parent good morning. caller: morning, pedro. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i have been listening this morning. this came to my attention this morning watching c-span. listening and observing what some people have to say about this. cheating.s
cooking books is cooking books. we have to wake up. here in this nation. you have to look at the law. you have the u.s. code of laws. you have commercial laws. you have the uniform commercial code. if you are trying to passively look at this, you have all of these violations on the books that people are not paying attention to. question, brings into where is the moral court in this country? are we looking at things morally or are we looking at things to satisfy how we -- host: apply that to the college omissions process then. -- college admissions process then. entail the process would extreme checks and balances. if you have checks and balances and athletes -- you have a process where people have to earn acceptance based off of merit and hard work they
are putting forward. you have a parent that can eliminate all that. that is a crime. host: that is walter in michigan. here's a couple other tweets about yesterday. about membershis of congress and the ministers. brendan boyle sending out this tweet sending out that this scandal is one more reminder of what kids from working-class backgrounds are up against. the whole system badly needs to be changed. another tweet from one of the president's advisers kellyanne conway representing the actresses who were caught up in this. actresses who the are caught up in this. adding that they are worried their daughters are as stupid as their mothers.
indiana, on our line for others, this is bart. hello. caller: good morning to you, sir. i am a graduate from college and so is my son. because i know and my son knows how much work it takes to get into college. .nd the work lots of time and effort. it is so sad. everybody involved in this should be terminated. medially. -- immediately. there is no excuse to allow this to happen. people have to get grants. the process is hard. it is pathetic. that you can just turn around and buy yourself into college like this.
the students who have done this, they need to go back and check their records. that got this waiver because of their parents who bought them into college or cheated themselves into college, they need to be dismissed immediately. all of these poor kids that were ,n the list and worked so hard their dreams were smashed because somebody got more money. it takes a lot of work. it is very sad. yesterday, youm think the process overall works generally echo caller: absolutely -- works generally? caller: yes, have slowly. you have some corruption. it comes with money. the dollar figure.
have to pay these professors high salaries. there is pressure, and there is temptation. there is greed. these poor students are paying for that. -- theest people deans, all the major alliances should go back. these people should be terminated. host: that is bart in indiana. this is off of facebook about the college admissions system. saying that it has been needing a revamp. wealthy need to be paying their fair share. the it'll to take the brunt. we will read the comments -- expecting the middle class to take the brunt. fornumber is (202) 748-8000
college students and parents. all others, (202) 748-8001. a related education story to share with you from the educational department featuring a story looking at betsy devos. the headline saying that religious groups can offer help in private schools saying that the rules from the educational department mean that public school district pay for professional development and send members of their own stuff to help struggling children who are extra -- who are eligible for after help. schools often contract a third-party to provide the services. the rules barred school district from contracting with a late -- with religious institutions. betsy devos said in an announcement yesterday that the prohibition was no longer enforceable because of a supreme court decision in which that religious organizations cannot --disk looted
this adds that the trinity lutheran decision reaffirmed the freeo not restrict the exercise of religion. that came out yesterday as well bribery0 charged with across the united states. tim, colorado springs, you are a parent. go ahead. caller: good morning. i heard this yesterday. i did not believe it. my son called me and told me about it. i heard it on television. i said, this is crazy. the reason i'm calling is, i have five children who are now adults who when they were in high school, they had to write letters for grants, they went on fast web. my wife and i did everything
possible if they wanted to go to college. that includes playing sports. they got scholarships. four out of the five children went to college on college scholarships. i will not say what they are doing well. they are doing well in life, all five of them. this is ridiculous. i do not think that college admissions needs to be changed so much because when you go to a school where they are doing their due diligence, it is done right. coaches,ents and these this goes all the way back to high school. this is the tip of the iceberg. if they thought they could do this to get into a university, what were they doing for their kids in high school to get them to think they could partake in such a system and that they could pay for it? that is the question that has to be answered. host: did you hear directly from your kids about the situation? caller: my son called me
directly and said, you have to check this out. college, the one that called me, he was an athlete. alongside some great athletes. also, some kids who you could tell, how did you get here? i will leave it at that. how did you get to this team? up, these kids did not show they had some parents who had some money. my son said, this is what i am talking about. somebody would get caught. never like this. it was crazy. host: tim in colorado springs. a parent who shares not only his personal opinion but also his son's who went to college on a scholarship and played sports. this is from the louisiana.
this is -- this is from louisiana. don, hello. qualityi worked with students at a public high school for gifted students. think these rich parents who game the system to get their kids into quality universities, i think that has been going on for a long time. the fact that the fbi went after them and got them is really heartening. i think a word to those rich , the fbi is coming after you. host: is this the first time you have ever heard of such a system that was discussed yesterday have you heard of a similar -- that was discussed yesterday? gladr: no, i am just so
the fbi is after them. the rich usually get what they want. this is the first time. i think it is terrific. that is all i have to say. host: here is one more bit from the fbi's presentation yesterday. [video clip] >> the parents charged today, despite already being able to give their children every legitimate advantage in the college emissions game chose to corrupt and manipulate the system for the benefit here we are not talk -- for the benefit. we are not talking about donating a building. we are talking about deception and fraud. state test -- fake test scores. take photographs. bribed college officials. host: the full extent of that is available at c-span.org. woodbridge, virginia.
caller: can you hear me? i am 70 years old. this has been going on for decades. there's been athletes over the decades, some of them cannot even read and write when they got into the pro's. these rich people have been doing this for decades, paying for their kids to get into the privileged colleges. i do not think it is going to change. look at how much it cost for the kids to go to school nowadays. this is nothing new. when i hear people saying this is having new, this is nothing new. this is been going on ever since the country formed. there has always been privilege from the risk -- from the rich. race does not have anything to do with it. you can be black and be rich.
or white. it does not make any difference. this is some thing that has been going on for decades. like i said with athletes, there have been many athletes they have put their college. some of them cannot even read and write and went to the pros. this is nothing new. maryland, you are up next. a student, hello. caller: how you doing? good morning. i am looking at the overall scope of everything you have discussed on cnn on every broadcast in which you discuss on your c-span show. the whole thing about america right now, she is selling out her birthright. let's --
host: let's stick to the idea of college emissions. i'm saying about the college issue and that -- is that the jelena before me, nothing is new. all of this government stuff, everything needs to be revamped. america is selling yourself short. what i would change is, like i said, you need to find out the real issues behind all of this and why it is happening. find out who the real students are that really want to apply to get a good education and to better the lives and forget
about all this other stuff. host: about 13 minutes or so. you can, if you like. it if you are -- it is (202) 748-8000 if you are a college student or parent. if you fall into the category of all others, it is (202) 748-8001 . one of the story that came out from the boeing crash, it talks about some of the process that the faa works in assuring safety. paragraphs, for decades, the faa has used their network of outside experts known as faa designees to certify standards. the regulator shifted its approach to how it regulated authority outside agency creating a new program in which aircraft manufacturers like
boeing could choose employees to certify the planes. the program is intended to certify the stretch and the resources. maintained offices inside boeing's factories. quote, i have raised this concern in the past. that is representative peter defazio, the chairman of the camp committee. he goes on to say, how much scrutiny are they applying and could they be influenced? , it is afficial saying very cozy relationship that the former head of the national press rotation board becomes the manufacturer and the regulator.
that is more about that. you can read that in the new york times. let's get a gym in maryland. jim -- let's go to jim in maryland. caller: just agreeing with the past two call if you're -- past two colors. callers.wo the scale of money that changed hands is staggering. it shows the gap between the middle class and the upper class and the rich. spend $500,000 just to have the child admitted to a college. host: tennessee is next. this is from richard in athens. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for taking my call. it is kind of ironic that i wife and i are in the position we are
in right now of trying to get my daughter into college. nts to be a nurse. we are squarely in the middle class. that means we pay the full amount wherever she goes. she is a good student. she does not have the tescor's. -- the test scores. she has been admitted to a private christian college but with a price tag of around $50,000, we are looking at alternatives. ironic that it is people do not understand people with money and power and position do not use it all the time. where i thought that's where i fault the schools is that they do not have any oversight. these kids were in that it into some of the scholarship programs
where the athletic director should have had oversight over the stuff. the buck don't stop at the coach. that is what i'm saying. host: aside from the money because of your experience, would you make any other changes aside from what you heard yesterday and the amount of money involved? enterprise, like in -- like any enterprise, you have to follow the money. this man set up a trust fund that they could funny -- they could funnel the money through where he did not have to pay taxes on it. people got to take a tax break on it. you need to follow the money. this is just a drop in the bucket. everybody knows this is a drop in the bucket. this is how jobs are obtained. , rich andct in life
powerful people manipulate the system. i know that. everybody knows that. it is where you get to the point where it is blatant, more oversight needs to be done. is richardit -- that in tennessee. conversation has been going back and forth. one comment says i feel bad for the kids who will suffer the consequences of the parents' actions. they were not aware of the bribes and the test cheating. that is one of the aspects that came out from the story that you can comment on. a conversation separate from this program takes place with this going on. you can make your thoughts known on the twitter feed. post on our facebook page. virginia is next.
this is a parent. s.ller: to richard, he need look around there are several community -- he needs to look around. there are several community colleges. sports needs to be took out of college. a recent college near me started a football program. they pay their coach over 6 million a year. the kids used to be able to go full time to school. it was $2300 a semester. now it is 5000. i think sports has raised the price of school a lot. myew years ago, me and husband was watching the news. , tennessee football program the news said the football program was a hundred $25 million in debt. our government needs to do
something. the cost of these programs cannot be charged back to the kids. i think there ought to be a strict testing program. it ought to be right up front how much it costs to go to school. if they pass the tests, they can afford to go, that is fine. as far as private college, we should not have no federal money going into private colleges. if harvard is a private college, and the federal government should not be giving -- then the federal government should not be giving money to harvard. host: would you eliminate all the sports? caller: i do not think they need to be eliminated. we send our kids to school to learn a job, a career. actually go to a professional sport? need to start making school about learning and not about playing sports. host: let's hear from arkansas.
caller: hello. aren't you pedro? host: i am. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i wanted to tell you about how i was able to finish college in the 1970's and 1980's. host: ok. caller: what happened is, i graduated from high school in 1970. somehow, this wonderful guidance got me a that i had full scholarship at the local college. the university of arkansas at little rock. years, bute for two i had to drop out to earn a living. then, years later, i went
back when i got a job as a fireman at a local fire department. work one day and be off the next two days. i went back to college. i was missing a third of my classes. i would ask my friends in the class, give me your notes from those days i missed. it worked out. do, i had toad to take out a one semester loan. that is what they did back then. host: in telling your experience, what do you think about that when you hear stories like the one revealed yesterdays about the parents involved in the scam? caller: oh my god, that is horrible.
going, it wass only like $1500 a semester. i would take out this loan. i could pay it off in three or four months. it was a one semester loan. college, i had no debt at all. call don will be the last for this topic. in new hampshire, a parent. caller: good morning. i had two children out of my three who went to harvard and dartmouth. the sat scores and all those other things were very important. me that people are now beginning to become aware of how much corruption is involved. if you went back and examined
the sat scores of the kennedys, reagan,es, and ronald and donald trump, his lawyers are making sure nobody sees his sat scores. theset cats been going to schools forever. this expose is very welcome to me because i was a schoolteacher. my parents were immigrants. they never got beyond the third grade. for me going to college was a big deal. you are doing a great job by the way. people begin to understand the system is rigged. host: that is done in new hampshire. he will finish us off. coming up, we will take a look at an aspect of the president's 2020 budget proposal.
particularly when it comes to the realms of medicare and medicaid. the washington examiner's kimberly leonard will break down the proposals for us. " will break down those proposals. we will hear from two legislators. those converse gauger -- those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> happy to do it. --- i've deftly done the 3:00 a.m.. it was the night of asca reveal vote. it worked out.
♪ >> it will reflect our society insomnia more ways. it is something that -- about the values and part of what we -- makes as part of america. toour first prize goes rodriguez, and luke sand from winter park high school in winter park florida. they are also our fan favorite an extra $500.n >> being an american is about so much more than national pride. it is the freedoms that allow our country to function. >> admits the for -- the flurry of fake news, we forget the
important role that journalism plays. >> the high school central winners are jacob salmon, michael moran and riley from urbandale, iowa, for fighting for a better tomorrow. theid you know it is almost 50th anniversary of the tinker versus des moines case. it was a lined -- a landmark case that allowed first amendment rights to students. this led to their school suspension. >> high school west goes to christian granados and gabriel wight from -- colorado springs, colorado. >> we lose sight about what america was founded on. every man is represented. this is what makes us american. thatg, the concept everyone affected by government gets a say. >> the grand prize winners of
$5,000 are mason and eli scott. imagine international academy of north texas for their video, what it means to be american. >> our institution is one of the most unique in the world where citizens have the powers vested in them to make the government accountable. the greatest thing about the issue of corruption is that the citizens are vocal in subduing it. areost cases, people willing to recognize flaws when the politicians do not. >> over the past 15 years, c-span has given away $1 million in total prizes to the winners of our video documentary competition. the top 21 winning entries will air on c-span in april. >> washington journal continues. host: kimberly leonard is the head reporter of the "washington examiner.' one of those aspects, medicare.
tell us about the president's thinking on the program. guest: it looks at what the projections are over the next 10 years, and a lot of democrats raised alarm because it looked as though president trump was suggesting that he would want to cut 800 billion -- $800 billion over 10 years. a closer look shows that that projection is doing a lot of heavy lifting. it assumes that the drug policy proposals of president trump are going to work and that medicare will spend less because drug pricing will go down. it proposes giving doctors and hospitals less funding. direct cuts are less significant, what is something that my cuts are seizing on. governmentoes the believe that savings could be found? guest: they have put forward proposals that have to do with lowering what individuals pay for drugs or being able to
better negotiate different parts of the system. some of them require an act of congress. to even reach those thresholds, they would need to pass legislation. it is important to say with the budget that the president's suggestions are suggestions, and they have to do with his personal priorities and congress is the one who decides what the budget will be. host: the president had talked about, i do not know if he had talked about changing medicare or medicaid. was that a surprise to find it? guest: it was. that is why we were looking at it closely, and thinking back to when president trump was running, he vowed that he would not cut medicare or medicaid. if you look at the budget, it looks like medicare cuts and broken promises is what democrats will be saying. the more significant overhauls have to do with the medicaid system. people 65 ands older and certain disabilities. indicate covered low end people
-- medicaid covers low end people. the bigger changes that president trump is proposing have to do with medicaid. host: one of those is to treat it as a block grant. describe what that is and why they think it is the best proposal. guest: it is something that a lot of republicans supported for a while and it was something they wanted to do in the repeal and replace measure. medicaid is a joint state and federal effort. when state spend money, the federal government matches what they need to pay for the expenses. what republicans and president trump have proposed is giving states a specific amount of money, and allowing states to do more of what they want with the funds. right now medicaid has a lot of rules on what it can and cannot be spent on. dates have to apply individually if they want to make changes.
if they want medicaid to cover more patients who have a mental illness, they have to apply for a waiver through the trump administration. that has historically been the case because the federal government is paying so much and they get a say as to what happens. and so, the proposal would end federalng what the government spends on medicaid. that would be a big overhaul and something that a lot of patient advocacy groups fight against. host: when it comes to the medicaid side are those who go to hospitals or doctors will pay more for that. guest: what is on the medicaid side has to do with the resident proposed more -- with the president proposing more states enact work requirements. arkansas put the plan into work already. 18,000 people lost health insurance.
dedicated work requirements require people who are not disabled -- medicaid work requirements require people were not disabled to work 20 hours a week. it is similar to food stamp probe lamp -- programs. it appears that people either have to follow the work requirements are not following them or unable to record they are following them. in a case in arkansas, there is a court hearing that looks at medicaid court requirements. the trump administration would like to see those implemented across the board. right now, the process i mentioned earlier is how states are applying to have the requirements go in. host: the topic of our discussion with kimberly leonard. if you want to ask your questions, democrats it is 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independent 202-748-8002.
you can reach us on twitter. generally, the democratic reaction, how would you categorize this? guest: they would weaponize this. looking at cuts to medicaid and toicare, they are ready seize on this as political attacks. just to go back a second. mit012, met romney -- romney used a lot of arguments about medicare cuts saying that obamacare had cut medicare. -- the arguments that were used had to do with some of the same proposals you are seeing in the trump budget. lower payments to hospitals and doctors. one of the big differences we would see if the budget were to have a change is that doctors who work in a hospital would get the same payment as those who
perform certain procedures outside of the hospital. that is one of the big changes that the obama administration had proposed. host: the health and human inretary on capitol hill front of the house energy and commerce committee was asked about these cuts. i would like you to take a listen to the exchange. [video clip] how do you reassure the american people that what they count on, what is really necessary in their lives, medicare beneficiaries, medicaid beneficiaries, that these numbers, what these numbers will do to them? these are massive cuts. >> on medicare we are putting it on a sounder footing for the future, and these are provider cuts. hospitals are not happy. the drug companies are not happy. >> how does that affect the beneficiaries? >> it reduces their
cost-sharing. as we end the abuse -- the abuse and minimize it, their sharing goes down. lessenwould providers their coverage if you will take almost $460 billion out of that? are you going to depend on the goodness of their hearts? >> a lot of them need to be in medicare. the hospital will not be in existence if it is not a medicare provider. >> what about the patients? coverage for medicare? >> i do not believe any of those three major areas of reduction will impact in any way patient access to services. end video clip] host: what is the general reaction to that. guest: the hospital industry is upset. they set out press releases and
they say they do not want to see cuts. they will fight against it. certain actions by the trump administration will work out. it assumes that going after a lot of abuse in the system will end up saving bonds -- funds. it assumes that drug payments that happen in hospitals will go through. if you look at different analyses, it is all about the politics. if you look at different analyses, they would say that this has little impact on patient access, although hospitals argue that if they get lower paces -- payments, how will they provide the care. host: do doctors have the same kind of reaction? guest: it depends if they work in a hospital or private practice, because that will impact their ability to receive payments. host: the first call from virginia. you are on. caller: my concern is based on
the policy that the trump administration is going after. they want their money for the stupid wall. so the people with medicare and medicaid, and social security are the dems of -- vic them -- victims of the scam. why did they not negotiate prices for medicare patients? eful lot ofave an aw money doing that. i know you are not close to collecting medicare, some people, that is their only way of getting care. they do not have supplemental insurance. you are going after them. the billionaires are making more money every single day, and you are just doing it because of the wall. 5% cuts across the board for the federal government, and that is to take care of that stupid wall. host: thank you.
guest: i think she is expressing what a lot of voters are saying with the tax bill. let us talk about drug negotiation. medicare part b is the portion -- part d is the portion that covers prescription drugs. they actually do negotiate the prices. people say they want medicare to be able to negotiate, they say they -- they mean they want the government to step in. different projections show that they would not necessarily do a better job than the private companies unless they were to say that we would exclude these specific drugs. you have to do what other countries do, which is to say no to certain drugs up until a certain amount of time or to say you have to start with generics and then you can move on to more expensive drugs. that would be the trade-off. host: john from california. hello. caller: hello.
can you hear me? host: go ahead. ,aller: i am a retired worker both federal and state government. i am very displeased with this particular argument about medicaid and medicare. medicare is not an entitlement. when i was working, i had to pay into it. when i was working for the state, you do not pay into medicare. they do not get that sort of retirement benefits. it seems to me that what we are doing is something that obama claimed he would not do, which was give illegals medicare and so forth. they have not paid anything into the system. i am not against illegals or anything like that. i think they need to contribute before they start receiving benefits. we are talking about the budget being out of proportion.
that is primarily because we are taking people -- taking care of people who have not paid into the system. it should be some sort of waiting period before they start receiving benefits. host: thank you. guest: i do not have the impression that they are receiving benefits. a lot of the people in the country illegally do paid taxes. california would like to spend state dollars on expanding access to people in the country illegally. right now the state has proposed a plan where people up to age 26 who are low income would be able to qualify for medicaid, so you would have to be low income and it would have to be only state funds paying for it. because otherwise the federal government will decline to pay for those costs. host: what is the current fiscal situation for both programs? guest: medicare is set to become insolvent, which means they will have to cut what people receive unless they do something to fix
it. that is why you have a lot of conservatives saying that it is time to reform medicare. what is interesting about the president's budget is that it does not do what a lot of others have proposed, which would be to privatize the program and give people a set amount of money to be able to buy private health insurance, and that was something that paul ryan had proposed. when we are talking about some of these different cuts, we are not looking at that proposal in the budget. that is one of the big differences. next, california. hello. guest: how would cutting -- caller: how would cutting connectedffect people to hmo's, particularly the kaiser foundation? they run their own hospitals. i would think with a certain
grant and a budget, that would stabilize the cost of medicare. --hink since people perform prefer medicare, that is the way medicare will go. i do not think with that concept, that medicare would go belly up quite as fast. guest: i can say the trump administration, based on interviews, they have encouraged people to go towards medicare and they want people to choose the plan that is best for them. they have done a lot to educate the people in medicare advantage. if you get regular medicare, you have to buy a prescription drug plan separately. you have to do that as an add-on. if you have medicare advantage, you have more included. the problem is that people do not know what they will need and what needs to be covered, and so forth. there are some concerns that sicker into -- individuals and
up worse off. a lot of that has to do with people trying to assess their plans and health, and figure out what works for them. host: how did the obama administration treat the medicare program? and does it still have impact today? guest: they had done a lot in terms of the affordable care act, reducing about $700 billion if not more in medicare. cut,ould look at that as a or as savings. a lot of it had to do with reducing funding to medicare advantage, which is the private plan. and also reducing what medicare pays doctors and hospitals. it did that in order to help fund the court -- the affordable care act. allowedrdable care act -- a different payment applications to be functional. planswhat are democrats' for medicare?
guest: there is a growing action in congress, will start with leadership. leadership is focused on thick sing the affordable care act. that is what they want to do and that is what the industry wants to see. they want more funding to go into the affordable care act so that people on this plans are paying less in premiums and so people who were uninsured will be a tight -- enticed to go in. then you have a separate portion gradual it as a more stepping stone towards a more universal health care coverage. they either want to let people buy into medicare at a younger -- or -- at a younger age for anyone to buy into medicare as a separate option. or instead of employer plans. then you have 107 democratic house members who have signed onto the medicare for all act. it is very important to be clear is what we are talking about
when we say medicare for all is different from what medicare looks like now. the bill covers more services than medicare currently does, for example, long-term care. it would cover all medical care without any co-pay i individual patients. it would enroll everyone who currently -- whatever health insurance plan you have, whether it is private or not, it would enroll everyone into this system. those are kind of the different steps that are emerging. democrats say that we could consider more gradual steps, but where they are focused as the affordable care act. host: this is kimberly leonard with the "washington examiner." from new york, bob. hello. caller: good morning. is, i do not necessarily need to go on medicare. several senators mentioned the
same thing. of do i not have the option not enrolling in medicare? my retirement from the state provides my insurance that i paid for that i would prefer to have. why do we not have the option not to go into medicare? some reformerse who believe that there should be a closer look at who gets medicare and who does not. you have people who can still qualify, and we all pay into medicare, which is why it is something people want to have later on. people who support the current system say that you never know where you'll end up. you do not know where you'll end up older than that. probably,g, there are when it comes to the health care industry, they would make -- they would like to make sure that medicare stays in place, and it is well-funded.
adding that the system is highly abused by providers and clients alike. you heard alex say the same thing. what are we talking about when we talk about abuse? guest: things like overbilling, performing the same tasks and procedures. across-the-board you would have health care providers acknowledge that there is a lot of waste and difficulty getting records from one place to another, so you can have a blood test one day and have it again another weeks later even though it has been performed and you did not need another test. you have a a lot of red tape as you go through the system. you have individual providers who are fraudulently brilliant -- telling medicare first -- for procedures that you have not performed. budget would's
specifically deal with abuse. host: greg, from massachusetts, republican line. i just started medicare, and i just had my wellness -- are you there? guest: yes. caller: i just had my wellness exam, and the bills are rolling in. for $11 forn eob someone to put a band-aid on the pin hole when they took blood. i am wondering -- my question is when are they going to start getting the hospitals to tell you what drug prices are, and procedures before you have stuff done. this is crazy. you get these ridiculous bills. how would anybody like it if the plumber kept sending someone customer bills a month later for things like putting on a
band-aid? that is crazy. host: thank you. guest: this is one of the areas where i would say, as someone who spends a lot of time on the hill, that is -- there is bipartisan agreement that something must be done. the health-care industry is on the same page when it comes to the issues that we mentioned earlier, not on the same page when it comes to out-of-pocket medical bills. the hospitals blame insurance companies and say they should be covering more. insurance companies blame hospitals and say why do you not tell your patient? why are you charging ridiculous christ -- prices? drug companies get blamed a lot. there is an effort led by senator bill cassidy along with look atic lawmakers to out-of-pocket medical bills and say how will we go about doing this. are we going to require more
transparency were for states to have an intermediary who will work these debates out for patients so that patients do not have to do it themselves? it is a huge frustration and something that a lot of people can relate to. host: if i am a patient, i would like to know a procedure -- how much a procedure will cost. is there a website that will list it out? guest: under trump administration rules, hospitals have to post different procedures on their website. they do not have a penalty not to do it, but that is on the table. it is something that the trump administration is looking at to be able to say what would be the next step. you have to put these online, so now you have to post a certain format. it might encourage consumer shopping, although it is going to be hard. it is not like shopping for other items. you cannot compare and see ratings. i think the idea for conservatives, and also for
liberals, is that people would costs,at the procedure why, and just to be aware before they make different choices. host: bobby, in mississippi. go ahead. caller: good morning. report that before long medicare is going broke. if do you figure that in more people are paying into it today than there has ever been? guest: it is going to become, and the word is insolvent. it does not mean it is going away, it means that the payments that go toward covering your medicare services are not going to be as much as they were and you will not be getting as much coverage and you as a patient will have to pay more out-of-pocket. congress will have to deal with it, it is something they have done before, that means adding
more funding or cutting payments. host: under the current system, how much does the government pick up versus how much does the consumer have to pay? guest: it depends on what you make and if you are also on medicaid. there are a lot of factors. generally, medicare is a popular program. that is why the slogan medicare for all works. that is why when you pull people about that, they tend to be positive about that. it is something that almost every provider will take, medicare because it has a large population. it is why a lot of democrats are considering at looking medicare as a way to extend health care insurance coverage. host: cheryl, in texas. caller: i just want to comment that none of the medicare
advantage policies are accepted at mda and cancer center in houston, which is the largest cancer hospital and it has the largest breast cancer department. i was diagnosed with breast cancer four years ago and i have been missed diagnosed -- miss diagnosed 46 -- for three years and told i had a cyst. by the time i was able to get to anderson.on, -- md i have been told i have a 40% chance that it will come back. i might be dead by now if i had not been able to go to md anderson. i would not have been able to go with any medicare advantage policy. medicaid,medicare, and many specialty doctors and hospitals, you are not allowed
to go there if you have a medicare advantage policy. i happen to live in the state with the most uninsured people in any of the states. it is a big issue. host: thank you for sharing. guest: that has to do a lot with what i was talking about. when you are shopping for medicare, you have to decide if you are going to use the traditional plan or medicare advantage. the trump administration has created tools that people can use online to compare what is in these plans and to be able to look at what providers are covered. has a lothis work -- of foresight. with that collar, she did not know she had breast cancer. it is a lot of heavy lifting for individuals consumers to figure out what health insurance plan might work for them and to make predictions about their lives. host: now that we have this presentation, if it goes nowhere, what is next? isst: right now, congress
house firstin the of all they are looking at stabilizing the affordable care act. republicans have told me, forget it. however, where they have coalesced has to do with pricing. what i talked about in terms of understanding what your hospital bill might be. looking at drug prices. they do not agree on how to go about it, my credits have said that they want to let the government negotiate, and republicans have said that we need more transparency. one of the big issues that i have seen them come together are brand-name drugs keeping generic drugs off the market. generics are copies that are cheaper. brand-name drugs have these ploys that they used to keep them from getting approved by the food and drug administration and reaching the market. that is something that i have seen them coalesced behind.
the trump administration has proposed, an interesting part of the budget has proposed that seniors have a cap on what they spend on their drugs if they are on medicare. that is something that democrats usually suggest. who knows if there is a motion behind that. probably not from republicans, that might mean medicare spending. with the president's blessing, there can be a green light to move ahead with different policies that might otherwise be considered. washingtonexaminer.com is where our guest rights. kimberly leonard, the senior health policy reporter. thank you you for our time. it is our today in washington segment. several things happening today, the second round of sentencing for paul manafort, also a story about the faa resisting tolls to -- calls to ground the boeing 737 max 8. a senate working on a proposal for future employee -- emergency
declarations. you can comment on those things. .emocrats, 202-748-8000 republicans, 202-748-8001. independent, 202-748-8002. ♪ >> sunday night, on afterwards, georgetown university professor examined russia's foreign policy and international girls in her book. -- goals in her book. she is interviewed by dena titus , who serves on the house foreign affairs committee. >> are you a little more optimistic that if we find some common ground, like arms
control, that we can be a good partner. popularity has fallen by 40 points since he was reelected last year. public opinion data in russia shows the majority of russians do not want stability, they want to change and a better economic situation. many of those people understand that having this antagonistic relationship to the -- to the west is not the way to go. nightch afterwards sunday on c-span2. c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house, and the supreme court. >> washington journal continues. host: "the new york times" has a
right up considering the latest of paul manafort. he could see his prison term extended by 10 years and a sentence -- a nice separate -- and a separate sentence. he was sentenced to nearly four years in prison. telik the third, and -- --'s met -- he was committed in charges of bank fraud and tax evasion. the district judge is seeing a related case where manafort pleaded guilty to two charges of conspiracy. she could add up to a decade in prison time. that is the write up in the " l.a. times" voteenate is set to take a on the emergency declaration tomorrow. times"in the " new york they report that a measure is ,eing worked with mike lee
supported by more than a dozen republican senators that would powers,the president's requiring a congressional vote of approval for any new emergency declaration after 30 days. one of the republicans who said that he favored the resolution said that he appeared to be wavering according to multiple people. the story had -- adds that " while mr. lee's bill would not apply to president trump's resolution, it would ease concerns that a future democratic president could take control of the presidency." takes ahington post" look at the faa, particularly in the light of the crash of the boeing eight. the trumpe that " administration resisted bipartisan calls to temporary suspend the use of boeing 737 max 8, even as president trump
was consulted by the ceo. the european and the union followed others's to bar flights. a former transportation safety official said that the federal aviation commission is losing its status. has beeng 737 max 8 involved in two crashes in six months, the first and october killed all 100 89 passengers on board when a plane plunged into the java c. those are some of the events happening in washington. if you want to give comment to those. here's how to do it. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. .ndependent, 202-748-8002 if you want to place your thoughts on our twitter feed, you can do ship -- do so, and
post on our facebook page. a couple of other things happening on capitol hill. the senate judiciary midi holding confirmation hearings for the president's nominees for the court of the ninth circuit at 10:00. the acting omb, will be before the senate budget committee to talk about the 2020 budget on c-span3. -- c-span3, c-span.org and our radio app, you can monitor that. if you are interested in the cost of higher education, that hearing also set on the house side, talking about college affordability. if you want to monitor that you can do that by going to our website at c-span.org, and that will start at about 10:15 this morning. c-span.org is where you can also see some of the events from yesterday, including the college
scam, the justice department's charges that they laid against those 50 parents and other school individuals. other material there too. conrad starts us off, in plainfield, new jersey. on the line for the democrats. caller: i just want to express my disappointment in miss. below seat she said impeachment is not -- pelosi when she says impeachment is not worth it. this is a president who has -- i think adam schiff should get him to testify under oath, because if he does speak a mistruths or alternative fact as kellyanne conway likes to say, that is perjury. host: as for the events for yesterday, any comments for the events in washington today. caller: as far as the family
relief act goes? i suppose that is a good thing. getting back to the president, i think he ought to testify under oath. if the senate chooses not to indict, it should be televised and let every republican senator up for reelection, let them make their vote publicly known and that will be a great way to primary that person in the fall. host: tim joins us from mistaken, -- from michigan, independent line. caller: have you been working out or something? you see a lot -- you seem a lot bigger than you used to be. host: to the comments of today, what do you think? caller: i would like to speak about the federal emergency thing. host: the emergency declaration? caller: yes. i hope the democrats, personally i would love to see bernie and
stacey abrams take it. if the democrats take over, i think climate change should be a federal emergency. i also think, when people say how will we pay for that? here's how you pay for that, you ways -- you raise the minimum wage. people will not need food stamps or federal assistance for rent. that will save money and they will be making more money and paying more taxes. host: do you think that, if the president gets money for a border wall through means of an emergency declaration, could that be applied to other administrations for other matters? caller: whenever the republicans, or republic can -- as i called them, because they cannot do anything to help the working poor, they the wealthy tax
rate, in a big giveaway. thing, back to the green now, instead of giving one trillion $.5 away to the already obscenely rich, you start having people build solar panels. paula, in oklahoma. democrats line. up to the should be airline corporations to ground their own planes and take responsibility for the safety of their passengers. they should not wait for the government to make a declaration. it is their planes and their responsibility. they should put the safety of their passengers first. host: do you think the faa should step in? caller: they should if they have to. but the airline should not wait
for that. host: that is paula coming in. is when it comes the faa and the boeing pain -- plain. paul manafort expecting to receive sentencing today, and also, efforts when it comes to the emergency declaration going on in the senate side. kansas, the republican line, this is catherine. caller: hello. host: go ahead. speaking for the people of kansas, that needs social security, medicaid, medicare and the generic medications expanded. because we need it. is catherine, and kansas. 202-748-8000 four democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans.
independent,3. -- 202-748-8001. a couple other things you can comment on, before we go on to our interview segment with two members of congress, in the business finance section of "the wall street journal" a decision by dicks, saying that they have struggled with inclining sales since the chief executive officer decided to stop selling guns to buyers under 21 years old and take assault style weapons after stores after a needles door shooting. -- after a fatal school shooting. they are attempting to stem sluggish sales. the store will remove guns and hunting gear from 125 locations after testing the contents in 10 stores according to the ceo. he said that in the 10 gun free
test stores, sales rose in the most recent quarter. overall the company reported a 2.2 drop in same-store sales according to the report from the wall street journal this morning. we will hear from the sioux, democrats -- sue, democrats line. caller: i want to make a comment about health care. i think it is insane that there patientch data that a has to give over in terms of everything about their lives, free in terms of outcomes. the only way health care will be responsive and responsible is if every patient has not only a right, but it is mandatory that all the dock errors -- doctors information about patients, to patients. that will make the whole thing
much more transparent. people will re-advise what has and has not been working. as it stands, it is so opaque it is almost like a priesthood. toy have no responsibility to be on it -- to be honest about what is happening. they do not have to report infections, or deaths. have to look into routines around what is causing epidemiology. host: natalie, from maryland. caller: good morning. i just popped into let you know that there is a lot of red herrings out there. the faa, and the fcc should step in when there is a violation of news that is not factually correct, or a lack of integrity.
i think we need to get back to the integrity base. usc 284 that allows the president to utilize the truth to build the wall and to make us secure. there is no need to declare an emergency. andybody needs to read up, dig into your statutes and facts, and stop with these red herrings, because we do not need to go down the road. host: republican senators who are resisting the president, that may be voting on them, -- may be voting tomorrow, what do you think about that effort? caller: they need to rally behind the president. he is making the jobs come back and is doing everything he can. we need to put our bipartisan aside and support him. host: independent line from william, and manassas, virginia. caller: good morning. -- i thinkake
congress taking higher education affordability is a good topic for me. also the other topic they should pick up. i do not care about impeaching donald trump, because he will be gone in 2020. i think those are the topics that are important to me, and maybe most americans. thank you. host: this is from the opinion section of "the washington post" about paul manafort. this is about his sentence last week. that, this -- saying is harry litman saying that amy
jackson is set to sentence paul manafort wednesday. they are going to play it by the book, the opposite of what ts --is the third did when he's his decision to sentence the former campaign chairman 240 months, which the sentencing guidelines prescribed a deadline has been roundly criticized and cited in a particular highlight to receive systematic disparities. -- this one on the separate matters that will take place later on this afternoon. from florida. my kratz line. -- democrats line. my comment was talking
about social security and disability. hadhow that program, they you just want to keep people first. virginia, dan, independent line. caller: my comment is on the decision on the faa. i am confused why people are so outraged. it seems statistically inconsistent, that even if you crashes are horrible, if you had two crashes every six months, air transport is still safer than any other transportation. if you are willing to climb in your car and this is freaking you out, it seems so unfounded and the faa does not do a good job on educating people. host: why does two crashes involving the same plane does not matter? caller: there are hundreds
flying multiple flights every day. you can look at two toyota crashes in the same month. it is such a small set of instances that are happening every year. host: to what level does it have to rise for sums -- for some type of concern to be shown? caller: you have to have legitimate proof that there is an error with the plane causing this. it is not like there are hundreds of plane types. you have a handful of different that any the chance two plus -- presses are the same plane is not that low. host: this is from mary, and massachusetts. caller: i must be on the wrong station. . 202-748-8002 you are calling washington journal.
say, i read her remark that president trump should be impeached. there would be a revolution, and civil war war in the streets. people ofthink the america are stupid that we cannot see through the bantering between one another. this is a fight between you fellows and women. did you hear me? host: raymond is next. caller: hello. faa, ito comment on the aerospace, and whenever
changes, and then those people would be there today. host: we would hear from lillian, and new york. independent line. caller: good morning. my comment is just about the government in general. i am sorry. i would like if we can just have the house, the senate, and all representatives whether they are republican or democrat working together, and doing their job. thank you. host: the bbc reporting about the latest when it comes to issues of exit. this is the headline with the british prime minister saying that the united kingdom could still leave the european union with a good deal. adding that members of parliament face hard choices after rejecting her deal. she said that she will rule out a no deal -- brexit on the 29th. she said that i may not have my own voice, but i understand the
voice of the country. jamie corbin says that the plant -- jeremy corbyn says the plan is been rejected by 149 votes on tuesday. the european were -- union has warned the risk of a disorderly brexit has never been higher. the european union cannot go further in trying to just -- to persuade the members of paul event -- of parliament. you can find more on the website. , washington, republican line. caller: hello. i have been thinking about all of this, and we are americans, aren't we? as americans, everyone in congress should be an american. host: ok. kurt is next. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is relative to
medicare, and the last person who was on. there is an important website called socialsecurity.gov. it will tell you how much money you have made and how much of that went to social security, and how much went to medicare. i do not want to bore anyone with numbers. 14.7% of your total earnings goes to pay those two things. $1.7 life, i have made million. thatf that -- 256,000 of went to social security and medicare and is divided down for going into social security, and 50,000, including employer contributions, into medicare. will be is that $50,000
drained once i hit medicare at for -- at 65 within a few problems of my health. how can a system sustain this when a person like me works for 30 years and i can wipe out that system in a few claims? host: that is hurt. the hill website reporting that the attorney for michael cohen sent a letter seeking to clarify the testimony about a potential presidential pardon. the attorney acknowledged that his client's testimony was not fully clear and maintained that his client was telling his panel the truth when he said he did not ask to seek a pardon because he was referring to the joint defense agreement that ended with president trump. he said that cohen had instructed him to explore the possibility of a pardon before the agreement andye -- ended. while the sentence could be clear, it is true that mr. cohen
stands by his statement. reggie, in north carolina. independent line. caller: hello. on thewanted to comment plane crash. i worked on helicopters in the military, and i know a lot of aircraft in the military, there have been a lot of crashes or people have died. even during peacetime. had coworkers and soldiers who were just doing their duty and they died because of crashes. crash,, when there is a if it was perceived that it was mechanical, all of that fleet. -- of those were grounded ok fixl there is a solution to the problem that caused the crash.
crashed --rcraft it that crashed, looked like a mechanical failure. the pilot on the one that recently crashed had multiple years of experience, and yet he could not save anyone on the plane. usually, the first thing they do in the military is ground the whole fleet until they find a resolution or reason why the crash happened. host: that is reggie, north carolina. this is off of the fox news website. it says a top republican on the house judiciary committee made a bold vow to show the american people the extent of corruption within the justice department with the handling of its investigations involving hillary clinton. been unfairly has attacked from the moment he was elected on many fronts. we are beginning to see the scope of what most of us knew.
he released documents to that matter on the website. again, i lost that page. that is the last for this segment. the next two guests are members of congress and will join us before the house comes in. we will be joined by brendan boyle, a member of the ways and means committee will talk about the budget request. the same topics for our following representative tom price, republican of south carolina. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." >> sunday on "q and a" --
i had no expectation we would be sitting here in 2019, talking about this war in afghanistan. the way it has been escalated, the way it has escalated every that the countless lives have been wasted, and the continual suffering. --direct war veteran matthew an iraq war veteran on his book. matthew: the same i had seen in 2005, 2006, 2007, as well as when i worked at the state department -- between those times, there was no difference in the administration. , theirinistrations desire was to win for political reasons. everything else was secondary.
>> matthew hope on "q and a." watch american history. from ford's theatre in washington, d.c., the 22nd annual abraham lincoln symposium. hostedylong gathering, by the abraham lincoln institute and the ford theater society, rings together lincoln scholars to highlight the 16th president 's life, career, and legacy. james, richard, mina on how lincoln was remembered, lincoln's relationship with frederick douglass, and lincoln as president-elect. watch "american history tv" this weekend on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. us, brendan boyle,
democrat of pennsylvania. he serves on the ways and means committee. what do you think of the president's 2020 request? simply, i think it is terrible. let me key in on a couple of areas. , he got positive publicity for the fact he was the only republican presidential candidate in the field of 17 who vowed not to cut social security and not to cut medicare. in his own budget, released two days ago, there are by their own admission cuts to social security and $845 billion worth of cuts to medicare. there are cuts to medicaid, cuts to student loans, cuts to a number of other initiatives. it is shocking, and truly what is surprising to me -- that for someone who frankly got a lot of mileage out of the fact that he was the one republican who took -republican position
in the primaries, vowing to never cut social security, to never cut medicare -- that he would buy his own volition commit to a budget that cut almost $1 trillion from medicare -- i completely oppose it. i don't think it is going to go anywhere in the democratic-controlled house. that is the good news. that it does show you that every election matters. and even though these are earned -- they sometimes are called entitlements. they are earned benefits, social security, medicare. they also need people in office committed to protecting them. host: what is the house democrats leadership plan for those programs? how do you make them fiscally viable? guest: both have different challenges. i serve on the social security subcommittee and ways and means. we will have another hearing tomorrow. social security is 100% solvent the next 50 years. 2034 and afterwards, there is a
financial challenge, mostly because of democrats, but baby boom the aging cohort and not enough young workers to support those retirees. i colleague john larson and i security 21 hundred, which would extend the lifespan of social security, as the title suggests, all the way to the 100. for medicare, it is a little bit different, the different financial challenges. it is also solvent, although the it wouldrunway before reach insolvency is a little bit shorter than 15, unlike social security. there, the challenge is more complex because it has to do with reducing health care costs. one, the myth that is out there that they are about to run out of money and we need to deeply cut them -- it is not true. it is an ideologically-driven
people whoment by never believed in medicare in the first place. both were labeled socialism when they came into existence. the number that whenever the charge is labeled today. social security, when it came in in the 1930's, was derided by conservative critics as socialist. the same with medicare and medicaid in the 1960's. now both are very accepted as all-american. host: there is a push to expand medicare, to push people into it and expand what is under it. is medicare in its current condition able to do that? law,: under existing obviously, we would need legal changes. what is interesting about medicare for all is something that has been out for some time. former senator ted kennedy wrote a book on this subject i think 20 years ago. there are many different proposals on how you would get there. it is a very interesting conversation. one of my colleagues has a buy-in fory am -- guy
which are50 to 64, often the part of the workforce most disadvantage by our changing economy. i cannot tell you how many people i have known in their mid-and late 50's who are laid off, who would be interested in retiring, but are not able to, not because of the paycheck, but because of the health care. allowing them a buy in to medicare would be supported because under the legislation it is paid for. it would be on an actual warily basis-- actuarially-sound , based on what people have already paid into the system after working for decades. it gets back to politics. a major divide between the parties is one party on the democratic side that believes in medicare, that believes it is legitimate to have government involved in these areas, and a republican side that fights
against it to stand male, and any time they are in power, wants to repeal it. it, andfights against any time they are in power, wants to repeal it. the affordable care act has expanded. the republican majority is not want to get rid of the affordable care act because of lack of sustainability. they wanted to get rid of it because of their conservative ideology. they had run on repeal and replace for eight years, even though they never had a plan to replace it. they just wanted to repeal it. that is the same kind of thing we face with social security and medicare. sure, there are fiscal challenges. social security's emerges in 15 years. medicare is a little more in the near term. with the affordable care act, what we find on the other side is ideology. they want to scrap them and do not believe government should be involved in this. brendan boyle is on the ways and means and budget
committees. if you want to ask them ask him questions, call him on one of the lines. you can also tweak your responses at -- tweet your responses at cspanwj. there are also increases in defense and the like in the budget. what do you think about that approach? and: an 8 billion -- guest: $8 billion proposed for the border while the president has been unable to get past four years -- the past two years, even when republicans controlled congress. before joining the ways and means committee, i was member of the foreign affairs committee. i have been proud of the bipartisan work i did on that committee and continue to do in this realm. we face a number of complex challenges around the world. there is a bipartisan group of
us that always wants to make sure that we have enough defense spending to meet our needs in a very complex world, a world where we face traditional nationstate threats from russia, from especially china, but also a world in which we increasingly face threats from what are called non-nationstate actors -- haram, etc.da, boko making sure we have a military that is still the unquestioned leader of the world is an important priority. we can talk about at what level that can be achieved, and at what level the increase requests are really justified, but that is an argument or a discussion that we will have. a number of us have been supported of their supportive of increases. host: 5% for defense, 8% for veterans affairs? guest: in the abstract, i could
not say without looking at the details. that is one nuanced difference. this past week or two days ago, when president trump or the white house released their budget, they released topline figures. a lot of the specifics will not be released until next week. i would have to wait to see. host: are those boost something they would push back against? you yourself are democratic leadership? see whatwould want to the spending is on. it depends what the needs are. i also, frankly, want to speak to the folks in the defense department, to make sure their funding requests are actually covered. ron is in ohio, democrats line. caller: pedro, i am calling in regards to that $4.7 trillion budget. i am 83 years old, knocking on 84. i paid into social security since i was 14, and i think i am
entitled to that. these idiots in washington like mick mulvaney and all "we got to cut it." what they cut their salary on their part-time jobs? it is just ridiculous. they are talking about impeaching. i don't think you should impeach him. just wait a little bit and then you can get him for treason and a traitor. thank you. guest: well first, i believe the happy 84th birthday -- i believe the gentleman is entirely right about paying into social security over a lifetime of working. for so many of our seniors, the majority of their retirement income is social security. years,existed now for 84 has never missed a payment in 84 years. so for all the people who want to pretend like it is about to run out of money, and believe it should be dramatically changed, remember 10 years ago the big
fight was george w. bush in his second term wanted to basically privatize it, turn it over to the stock market. it would be a terrible mistake to have any sort of dramatic change to social security. it has worked for 84 years. there are modifications that can be made for after 2034 to bring more revenue into the system, to make sure it is solvent through the year 2100. we should celebrate the fact that in many ways social security has been one of the greatest domestic policy achievements of the 20th century. wejust need to make sure keep it going through the 21st century. i think that is a solid obligation we have to america's citizens. host: as far as pursuing impeachment by speaker pelosi, do you align yourself with that or not? guest: for good or for ill, i have had the same position for the last year, year plus. i am waiting to see the mueller report. i think it is premature to
answer the question until we see what is there. i think that this has to be driven by the facts. i think that we had an impeachment process that was entirely too political and politically motivated in the last 1990's. that intain extent, some ways hurt impeachment as a tool. it delegitimized it for many. at the same time, you had the successful model in the early 1970's. although nixon was not ultimately route -- ultimately impeached -- he resigned before he could be -- i think that is the gold standard for a fair and just process. that, to me, is incredibly important. i suspend judgment until we see what is in the mueller report. host: this is from west virginia, republican line. guest: how are you doing to -- caller: how are you doing today? this 800 billion dollar cut you are talking about for social security -- is this on a 10 year
basis, how normally politicians speak, or is this yearly? this is a typical democratic tactic to mislead people and think the republican bogeyman is coming, could take everything away from you that we are doing for you. we are so good, and they are so mean. it is just not true. is this what it is or not? steve, it is a hundred $45 billion. it is for medicare, not social security, and -- it is $845 notion, for medicare, social security. it is over 10 years. $84 billion a year is a huge cut. budgets are released in 10 year increments. whether you describe it as a hundred $45 billion over 10 years or -- as $845 ilya and
or $84 billion a year, that is huge. it would change the way prescription drugs are done, and fight what is called waste, fraud? guest: i believe these cuts are not needed. let's take a step back and realize why we are in this massive deficit situation. our deficits have been going down for the last eight years, from when the great recession peaked about a year into president obama's presidency. the next seven years while barack obama was president, the deficit came down every single year. growing.my was fortunately, within president trump's first two years, that has continued. the economy has continued to gain steam or at least maintain the same level. the difference is the deficit spiked last year. we are now approaching a trillion dollars on the deficit, the first time ever the deficit has spiked when we have been in an economic expansion.
why? because of the republican tax cut, a $1.4 trillion tax cut that they passed last year, 83% of which went to the richest 1%. that is why we are in this deficit situation. it is not because of any changes to medicare. it is not because we are spending more money on government programs or any sort of discretionary programs. it is because of a massive tax cut the republican congress pushed through, most of which has benefited the richest 1%. the majority of the republican tax cut benefited not just the -tenth of the top one 1%. at a time when we have record inequality in america, to push a tax cut that is so waited for the very elite in our society is bad economics, and frankly i think morally repugnant. host: ricky is next from tennessee, independent line. , my question is,
, why observation would be is not representative oil -- , the democrats, or republicans actually talking about the cost of illegal aliens in the united states? , if you go and look and do the research, you find out that the illegal aliens ate cost this nation may be, this moment, close to $55 billion. you are talking about spending a .eficit i would think that would be a great cause of the deficit, if you multiply this times six. you are looking at $280 billion
spent on people who are illegally over here, when that is enough money there to keep social security going, to keep medicare going, to help with the infrastructure, and everything else? on the topic of illegal --igration, i think that is i take ricky's point, but i think the topic of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, has gotten a lot of attention in washington. the government shutdown 35 days, the longest in american history, over this topic. we as a country have always had an interesting view on immigration. as a country, 90% of us approximately are the descendents of immigrants. pretty much everyone unless you are the descendent of slaves or a native american. everyone else is the descendent, by definition, of immigrants.
i believe in a legal, orderly system. i believe that is best for the country and best for everybody. this rhetoric in the last few years of beating up on immigrants, particularly those who come here illegally -- i think it is wrong. i think we have had previous eras from the 1840's, 1880's, 1920's -- we have had previous cycles where bashing immigrants has become en vogue and has become popular, and i don't think it's really in the best of the american tradition. there is a perception that some have that immigrants cost us money. there are also plenty of studies that show sort of economic activity that immigrants add to our nation's economy. show itdies out there is a net positive rather than a net negative. making sure we do have an , particularly on
our southern border, is something that is in our national interest. i am in favor of for security. if we were to have -- --ortunately, we do not have fortunately, we do not have a spike in illegal immigration. we did around 2006. areborder crossings actually at multi-decade lows, and have been for a while. but if we ever were again to have a spike in illegal immigration and border crossings, that would be bad for our country. leads to -- those folks who are coming many times are fleeing deprivation or even violence. it can also lead to them being taken advantage of on the journey here, or while they are working in the shadows. it is best for everyone that we have an orderly, logical immigration system. the president went far too far when he decided to shut down the
government over a border wall that most people believe would be ineffective. is representative brendan boyle, a member of the budget committee and the ways and means committee. he serves pennsylvania as a democrat from the second district. let's go to florida, democrats line, emily. caller: how are you gentlemen doing? good, i just have a question referring back to defense spending and enhancing militarization. the federal budget right now, with the international affairs budget, regarding humanitarian and diplomatic efforts are less than 1% right now. i know with this requested budget, it has not raised much, but i know a lot of retired military generals say that influencing diplomatic and humanitarian efforts is more important than weaponization. you shareering if those views, why it is not more congressmen, humanitarian efforts. a very good point.
i believe it was general mattis who talked about the importance to our defense department of having an actively supported diplomatic corps. i think you military and assistance is part of our overall foreign policy. there is always a public perception that it is a massive amount of spending or a massive amount of our budget. as emily pointed out, it is actually well below 1%. something i have always supported on the foreign affairs committee, where i served, which had strong bipartisan support, pushing back on proposed cuts by the administration over the past couple of years. in,icularly when they came they wanted to devastate the state department. we had a number of career officers leave, people who served 25, 30 years, served in republican administrations, democratic administrations. it does seem as if the situation has stabilized a bit, but it is a point to remember, that our
humanitarian assistance, our diplomatic corps -- they are overall part of our larger mission, and serve a great purpose that sometimes gets maligned. host: you serve the state of pennsylvania. a resident of delaware is thinking of running for president. what do you think of that move if it happens? fan.: i am a big joe biden he is popular and part of obama's success. if he enters, he would be a formidable candidate. we have an embarrassment of riches on the democratic side. there is no question that if joe biden were to run and were to be the democratic nominee, i am highly confident we would win pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin. we do that, we win the white house. and i am biased, but it is my neck of the woods. the math is clear. that is the path to which party wins the white house.
host: has he talked to you about this? guest: no comment. host: so he has. -- i am aill say he fan and if he decided to run, he would be president from day one, and what contrast what he offered to donald. it is not even close. in "the daily beast" says he has three problems. the first is handling the anita hill matter during the clarence thomas hearings. , on race, particularly opposition to busing, and third, to centrist and corporate. adding that he is from delaware, where most corporations are. inst: a lot of us pennsylvania are familiar to him because we had two republican senators for a long time, and as someone becoming active in
democratic politics, joe biden, who was 20 minutes away, would be supportive of our local democratic efforts. -- and helways had a happens to have been born and raised in pennsylvania, so i have always considered him as a bit of a hometown person. as far as those issues, it is interesting. a couple of things you mentioned actually happened before i was born. so for some folks who are my age and younger, these issues might not be as relevant. what someone said or what their position was in the 1970's -- anita hill, i do remember those televised hearings. it was really before the modern media that we have today. i was in high school at that point, and i think that he has addressed the anita hill issue. i think that will be something he will probably have to address again. i think he points out the challenges that he had, given that it was ultimately republicans who control the process.
but look, it is a long campaign. there will be many different issues. if it ise surprised decided on something that someone said or did in the 1970's or 1980's. i really think more than anything, voters are concerned about the here and now, and who can beat donald trump, and who can actually govern and return us to normalcy over the next four years. i think those things, in the end, will be far more important. host: tana republican line, david, you are next up. $4.7 trillion is 4.7 million million dollars. my question is what is the estimated tax receipts for 2020? theou subtract that from $4.7 trillion, you get the deficit. thank you. guest: the estimated tax
receipts are almost $1 trillion lower, about $3.8 trillion. it gives you the idea of the scale of the deficit we are now running. and again, it is such an unnecessary tragedy. just a couple years ago, our deficit was less than half of what it will be next year. years, it ishe out projected to rise well over $1 trillion. the republican tax cut, none of which was paid for -- not one dime of it was paid for. we are going to be paying that and the interest on it for a long time to come. it was really a great mistake. host: one more call, from texas, democrats line, michael. caller: how you doing? can you hear me? host: you are on. go ahead, sir. caller: when they ripped out --ial security, years back
is the iou still in their? -- there? the nuclear hardware for refueling after 25 years -- is it cheaper to rebuild it or to get rid of it? that is my second question. you know when they got that reactor field, and the have to put it back into the navy part of it -- they go ahead and ,etire before they refuel them and just get some new ones. on social security, michael brings up a point that i was just having a telephone town hall meeting with my constituents last night and came up again on that call, as it often does -- more money has been paid into social security than has been paid out in the lifetime of the program. unfortunately, beginning in the late 1960's, the president,
republican president, democratic has continued ever since then, started using the social security surplus for non-social security means. if you might remember -- even though i am young, i remember 20 years ago, when al gore always or often used the term lockbox. he was made fun of by "saturday night live" for this, but he was talking about this topic, that money being paid into social security should go into a metaphorical lockbox and should be saved. it is unfortunate that the social security trust fund was rated in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and it continued for the following decades. i talked about there being enough money in social security through 2034 to pay all of its obligations. the social security trust fund had never been rated, this would not be a problem for decades and decades to come. as for the second question on nuclear, clearly it is
expensive. the challenge has always been the overall cost of not having a nuclear program, when america's adversaries and enemies have one . we should be realistic about the cost. we dramatically started increasing spending in the 1980's on nuclear. that was not terribly popular at the time, but when we look back and see that we bankrupted the soviet union into going out of existence, there obviously was a great benefit to that as well. so i think on these questions overall when it comes to defense, it is a question of balance with our domestic priorities. especially as, the world's number one gdp, do both well. host: our guest serves as a democrat from pennsylvania. he serves on the budget and ways and means committee. representative brendan boyle. we will talk to his colleague on rice,ys and means, tom
a lot of times, people will not know the artist or the title, but it is an iconic piece, the most iconic piece of american art. >> iowa caucuses have not been great at selecting the next president. --seems the caucuses really perhaps their best or highest function is winnowing the field. about the top three finishers in the caucus that can move on. >> join us on "booktv" as we speak with local cedar rapids authors. and sunday is american history tv, as we explore the american story. pres. roosevelt: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. pres. kennedy: ask not what your
country can do for you. ask what you can do for your country. reagan: knocked these buildings down. not all of this down. bush: knock all of this down. >> interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs, "the presidents" will be on shelves april 23, but you can preorder your copy today at c-span.org or wherever books are sold. "washington journal" continues. host: representative tom price
serves the seventh district of south carolina and is a member of the ways and means committee, here to talk about the president's budget request. where do you think the budget request is going for the president? guest: i don't think it will be adopted in its current form. i have been here six years. i have not seen a president's budget adopted yet. ago, one of the republicans put president obama's budget up and it got 10 votes in the house. it is a fairly aspirational document. i like the path of it. but in terms of actually getting adopted, i suspect it will not. host: when you say you like the path, can you expand on that? what do you like? guest: he moves on cutting nondefense discretionary spending by 5% to 9%. that is a step in the right direction. of the things that has hurt is proposed cuts to medicare and medicaid. is that something you support? guest: we have got to figure out
in to solve the spending medicare and medicaid, or when it will bring -- break the bank. we are spending a trillion dollars on health care between medicare and medicaid and the affordable care act. ifcannot balance the budget we don't figure out a way to control that runaway spending. we are working on that. the ways and means committee is talking about prescription drug prices and taking away incentives to charge higher prices to the government through medicare and medicaid, but there is a lot of work to be done. host: why do you think those proposals -- prescription drugs and waste and abuse -- why do you think those will affect those cuts? guest: i believe the only way we are going to resolve that is to bring more private competition in to bring costs down. private competition is a way to get efficiency, and it is a way to control costs. if you do not have that in the right way, we will not be able to resolve this problem. host: when it comes to the
president's approach, our last guest and other critics have said that when it comes to the recent fiscal condition including the rise in the nation's debt, tax cuts are to blame. do you buy that argument? guest: people say the tax cuts are costing us $550 billion a year. to the extent of that, yes, it has certainly created a little more deficit. that the gdppoint grows, it adds $300 billion a year to the revenue. what is too early to say the long-term effect of the tax bill will be. what i believe is that our economy, our economic state here in washington, put the american worker in a noncompetitive state . i mean, we were so for behind the rest of the world, we had no choice. we had to move on tax reform. when i was evaluating that as a member of and means committee, i was willing to accept some small increase in the deficit to put
our economy in a place where american workers will be allowed to compete with the rest of the world. i think if we put them on a level playing field, they can compete with anybody. tax reform was the number one thing we had to do. it was the number-one thing i wanted to do when i got here, because i felt like we were so far behind the rest of the world. we had the highest rates in the organized economic countries, and our regulatory state was strangling competition here. we have done a lot of work on that. our trade agreements were often balanced against us. 30 years ago, we were so far ahead of the rest of the world, we could accept one-sided trade agreements. we cannot do that anymore. a reset on nafta was necessary, and i have not met a person yet who does not think china is a bad active -- bad actor. if we can make progress on those areas, i think that will fuel the economy and add to the gdp growth. on infrastructure, if we expect to compete on the world stage,
we have to have world-class infrastructure. these are all policies that i espoused before the president got there. and i want to help him get there. if we can pull those things off, i think we're closing in on china. i think we can see continued expansion for the foreseeable future. host: how much is that built on a 3% gdp, and is that sustainable, do you think? guest: if we stop where we are, it is not sustainable. i think if we add you'll or fertilizerdd fuel or with better trade agreements with nafta and china, and spread that to europe and japan and the rest of the countries, and open their markets to american goods, and i think if we do on infrastructure package, yes, i think 3% gdp growth is certainly sustainable for the foreseeable future. the federal reserve and congressional budget office both said that could be
difficult. guest: you could be difficult if we stop where we are. here is the thing. the president came in and promised prosperity. he promised opportunity. and he is delivering. we had last year 3.2% wage growth for the first time since 2005. 3% gdp growth for the first time in's 2007. we have got sub 4% unemployment for the first time in a long, long time. the richot just affect areas. i have three of the poorest counties in south carolina in my district. marion county, south carolina, january 1 2017, the employment rate was 9.6%. it hit 4.8% last month. it is at 5.2% right now. that is a norm is. people who have been left behind by our economy and by our society for generations have opportunities now they had not had in a long, long time. i work every day to try to get
as many of them to take advantage of that as possible. host: the house comes in at 10:00. our guest will be with us until then. call him. guest, representative tom rice, republican of south carolina. our first call comes from oklahoma, max calling on our independent line. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: yes, i am a retired, disabled veteran, almost 37 years military service, active and reserve. one thing i have noticed in my , from marinents corporal sniper to special direct commission and intel officer, and all sorts of assignments after that i cannot talk about -- i have served in the pentagon. , served at various posts intelligent school, overseas.
and i have noticed that there is a problem with the military. it is that they are not focused spear, asnt of the they call it. the military is by definition the warriors. it is not the bookkeepers, the truck drivers, and all of this other stuff. all of that support function told be farmed out contractors, or civilian eyes. -- civilianized. guest: certainly, there are room for efficiencies in every branch of government, and that is one area where private enterprise is far better than any service the government can offer, because they look for efficiencies or they do not survive. and unfortunately, working with the government, it is not your money. i do not want to pick on the department of defense. that is the thing i think the
government does the best. our military is the best in the world. and you for your service and for your insight on this. certainly, there is a lot of fat that could be cut at the pentagon and across every single federal bureaucracy. ont: one of the viewers twitter talks about the fat you speak of, and he highlights the cost of military hardware and the extremely high officer pay. guest: i don't know that officer pay is really all that out of line. i think they went without raises for quite a few years, and we just got them raises last year across the board. paidnk our military is fairly, to my knowledge. certainly, you can point to any federal department and you can look at areas where there is waste. you can look at areas where we are paying too much for a piece of agreement. people would argue that the f-35 is too expensive, and others would argue that we need to put more money into it. we certainly constantly look at
that, and look for ways to trim the fat. carroll -- on the democrats line from south carolina. caller: good morning. guest: how are you? caller: fine. recently, i moved. and recently i just had a birthday. so i am officially retired. is there any money for folks like me that are going to see an increase in social security? guest: social security is on a securityh, and social is -- we are certainly worried about it. we have got to fix it. it is scheduled to run out of the trust fund money in about 2032, i think it is, or 2033. between now and then, we have to figure out a way to make the trust fund whole. there are a lot of proposals out there. there is a republican proposal, a democratic proposal.
in the end, nothing is going to happen unless it is in a bipartisan way. i suspect there is going to be some revenue raised. i suspect there is going to be may be maybe the life expectancy pushed out a little further for people who are further away from retiring. somepect that you will see people who are on the higher-end get cut a little bit on their benefits. this has got to be done. we have got to make this -- this is a promise we made to our seniors, and too many people rely on it. it has to be a rocksolid promise. host: for those things you listed, are you comfortable with all those approaches? got toi think we have sit down and look at everything. everything has got to be on the table. there has to be bipartisan support, and the president has got to be on board, and i don't think you will be on board until his next term. host: republican line, new york, kermit, hello. caller: good morning. guest: hey, kermit. how are you? caller: how are you today?
guest: good. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: go ahead. you are already on. caller: good. my question concerns the deficit. gentlemantened to the who said that the budget being presented is approximately $1 thelion that will add to deficit. so my question is, how can we continue to spend more money than what we are generating in revenues? guest: well, kermit, you are right. that is a huge problem. is, wey way to fix it have to figure out a way to balance social security, medicare, and medicaid. social security and health care really are the main things that are driving our budget deficit. all of theinated things that you think about when you think about running the government -- the department of agriculture, the department of defense, the department of homeland security, and
everything -- if you eliminated all of that, we would still be close to running a deficit. that certainly is not practical. the only way we are going to entitlements. when we health-care spending is driving the biggest part of the deficit, and we have to figure out a way to get it resolved. been those have always third row conversations, but why do you think there could be a change approaching those topics? guest: why do you think there will be a change? i think we are going to be forced. we are going to be forced into facing that. if we do not do it, we are going to face a crisis. i think president bush tried to take on entitlements in his second term and found no appetite for it whatsoever. in fact, every president has talked about it at some point since reagan. i think reagan was the last one who did meaningful social security reform. he and tip o'neill worked together across the aisle and got it done. neither party is willing to take it on their own, no matter what you do. payare going to make people
a price. you have to have bipartisan consensus and the president leader willing to take charge and get things done. donald trump, like him or hate him, he is somebody who likes to congress things, and he recognizes this problem. i suspect he will take it -- likes to accomplish things, and he will host: take it on. do you -- take it on. host: do you think the house will help resolve these things? guest: medicare, we are approaching 10 years before it is insolvent. it is a good time to get it moving. host: from new york, this is jack on our independent line. thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: hello and thank you for taking my call. billion, combat operations in the middle east. for that, do we get stable democracies, defeat our enemies?
that means no more combat and therefore no more u.s. debt. that would be a no to all those questions. here is my suggestion. bring that money on wars home. for that kind of money, we could end hunger in the u.s. and homelessness in the u.s., fund , fix school in the u.s. our roads and bridges. what would you like to do with $770 billion? know, i completely agree we are too involved in too many areas around the world. the president agrees as well. he wants to pull out of syria. i think at this point he has decided he wants to leave a small scale force. he is trying to bring the koreas together. he is trying to solve the hotspots where we can stop putting american lives an american treasure on the line.
i think you are exactly right. host: democrats line, gerald from louisiana. caller: the republicans are robbing the poor and giving to the rich. the big tax burden -- this big tax break is going to solve everything question mark jobs and everything? what happened to the tax break? you have walmart closing, anp closing, dollar stores closing. you have got all the stores closing. and this man is sitting up here talking about the country is doing great. -- that is ine poor areas. that is poor people. that is where we get jobs. not worried about kicking the can down the road at the moment. remember kicking the can? ?ou know what else they are not worried about the deficit.
now you want to go after health care. here for the president. host: our guest response? guest: i am sorry. i do not know your particular locality, but i think the tax reform package lifted the economy across the country. i represent some of the poorest areas of south carolina. they're unemployed at rates are dropping, rates they have not seen in 40, 50 years. we have more jobs open than people to fill them. i have employers screening for employees. technical schools back home are offering training programs for people where if you come from a modest income family, it is free. the technical program directors tell me they could place a thousand these old mechanics -- mechanics diesel tomorrow. they have 100% mechanical
placement. the tuition is free. it is not a loan. it is not cheap. it is free. programs for up people that we previously thought were unemployable, a 12 week program in electrical or plumbing or construction. it is free tuition and they will pay your bus fare to get there. our problem is we cannot get enough people to sign up. we are out in the communities, working with pastors, with teachers, with guidance counselors. i have secretary devos down there a couple of weeks ago, tried to educate people about what is available to them. right now, this is the golden age of opportunity -- right now. it won't stay this way forever. economic cycles move on. and we need to move as many people -- there is a lot of people across the country, particularly in my district, that have been out of the workforce for a long time. the more people we can bring back into that -- every person we can get to take advantage of this opportunity that is here
now, with this tax cut bill -- either way, the tax foundation says it cut the average family's tax bill by $1200. and it cut taxes for about 85 to 90% of the people, including folks on the lower end of the scale. but this tax bill is partly responsible for the economic prosperity we are seeing right now. every person we can pull off the sidelines and back into the workforce solves a lot of problems. the nameplate on my desk says we lowerbs, jobs." crime, drugs, benefit the family , benefit the community, and benefit our country. everyone is working really hard to pull as many as i can in my district back into the workforce. host: the republicans have done more cutting spending when the house was in republican hands as well as the senate and the white house? part of the business of
government's compromise, right? that is how it works. there has never been a circumstance where republicans have had 60 votes in the senate. that means we always have to have democrat votes to get anything done. that means we have to compromise. and when we saw our deficit problem, which means we are going to have to deal with entitlements -- it is never easy, but it is going to have to be bipartisan or it will not get done. sam johnson put up a bill to years ago that would balance social security purely by reducing benefits, raising the retirement age, and cutting the initial benefit for people who are five years out, and lowering the cost of living adjustment. chuck larson has a bill out right now that does it purely by raising taxes. it would raise the taxes by 2.4% for people making less than $130,000. a guy making $40,000 a year, 2.4% is a thousand more dollars a year out of his pocket. a guy making $40,000 a year.
social security taxes, there are no deductions for that. it would raise taxes by 15% on people making over $400,000. huge tax increase. jack larson's bill is not going to happen. sam johnson's bill is not going to happen. something in the middle -- both parties are going to have to work for something in the middle, and we will fix social security. we have got to. host: independent line, oregon. if our i was wondering budget problems could be solved quite easily by personal responsibility. for instance, the immigration --blem, the war on drugs those are not problems of anything other than demand. we are the demand, but we've had -- we punish the supply. so if we are not willing to admit who we are, then we are the problem. how is it that our budget
problem would ever be solved? it all amounts to what we are demanding, but we don't punish the demand. we go after the supply. we are capitalists. demand is what drives supply, not the other way around. host: color, thank you. guest: -- caller, thank you. isst: i agree that america built on personal responsibility. that is how our form of government was designed. we have to have personal responsibility as a country or we will fail. that is part of how we have to deal with entitlement spending, with respect to the immigration and drug issue you raised. mostly it comes from our southern border and that is why our president was to secure the southern border. i am 100% with him. , think 72,000 people americans, died last year from drug overdoses. by far, the majority of that comes across our southern border. you are right that it is partly
a demand issue and partly a supply issue, but the demand, in my opinion, would be diminished if it was harder to get those drugs. we need to do a better job of securing our southern border, and a physical barrier in some cases. host: a tweet this morning that speaker pelosi says the house will not take up the senate legislation to amend the national emergencies act. theis quoted as saying house will not give president trump a pass. what you think about that? guest: does not surprise me slightly. she does not want to give the president even more power. the president has too much power under the national emergency act. under theelieve that power that was given to the presidents in the 1970's under the emergency act, i think as it law,, theay, the president can declare a national emergency at the border. over 30 national emergencies
exist, the clerk in the obama administration and earlier. we have emergencies for events in burundi and somalia and so forth, and i think the southern border is more significant to the american border than any of those things that exist. host: speaker pelosi -- were you surprised by her statements about pursuing impeachment? guest: not really. this mueller investigation has been going on for two years, and they leak like a sieve, so i think we know anything that is .oing to come out of it it is going to look at russian collusion. they found none. an obstruction. the arrests they have had or the indictments they have had have all been based on -- mr. manafort was tax evasion from years and years ago. and when they like to investigators about this or that. to the purpose for why the team was formed. and i suspect that when the report is issued, it will be pretty much of a nonevent, but
we will see. host: terry from pennsylvania, democrats line. we are running short on time, so jump right in. thank you, gentlemen. my question is about this social security. they are talking about raising the cap on social security. i know tom rice, being a republican, would be against it, but what about having a sliding scale on the cap on the wealthy? host: apologies, let's leave it there. guest: i think everything has to be on the table to fix social security. i think of the entitlements we longto fix that will go a way toward fixing our budget deficit, social security is the easiest. i would like to see it fixed in a magical way where we did not have to raise revenue, but i am afraid some revenue raising will have to be part of that equation. if raising the cap's is part of it, we will see. it is going to have to be bipartisan. there will have to be revenue raised in one way or another.
if you could do it through raising the caps, through raising the rates -- larson's builders both. on the other side, raising the retirement age -- the last time social security was modified, the average life expectancy across demographics has gone up by five years. social security was not designed to carry you for as many years as it is doing right now. thank you for having me. thank you, color. host: we go to the house. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] house will come to order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 13, 2019, i hereby appoint the honorable darren soto to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3,